J'Accuse: Shame on Germany for Circumcision Ban

Why do countries with long histories of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry seem to care more about the so-called rights of young children not to be circumcised than do other countries in the world with far better histories of concern for human rights? The same rhetorical question can be asked of countries, such as Norway, that care so much about the rights of animals not to be slaughtered according to Jewish ritual. These questions are entirely rhetorical because every thinking person knows the answer. It's not because Germans or Norwegians are better people and care more about children and animals than do Americans. It is because they care less about Jews. Or more precisely they care a lot about Jews. They just don't like them very much and don't care if they are forced to leave the country because they cannot practice their religion there.

So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised 8 days after birth. Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews.

History is not irrelevant in assessing current policies. The history of Germany (and Norway) in prohibiting Jews from practicing their traditional rituals goes back to a time when overt anti-Semitism was not only acceptable, it was de rigeur. Today, new words replace discredited old ones. Anti-Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. The welfare of children instead of the banning of religious rituals. But it's all the same. Anyone who falls for the new pseudo-scientific nonsense about the evils of circumcision or ritual slaughter is as naïve or bigoted as those who fell for the old pseudo-scientific racial claims of Nazism.

Indeed, there is an ugly whiff of "racial superiority" in the implicit assumption underlying these bigoted laws: Namely, that Germans and Norwegians are somehow morally (if not racially) superior to other countries that permit such "barbaric" practices.

So let's call a spade a spade and let's call anti-Semitism by its true name.

How then should reasonable people respond to these unreasonable efforts to make it difficult to practice traditional Judaism? Some have called for a legal response. Perhaps. But fighting these bigoted practices in court plays into the hands of those who are proposing it. In Nazi Germany, respected jurists were able to use the law to justify the most primitive forms of racism. Indeed Nazism operated through the Nuremberg laws and other such anti-Semitic legal enactments, which were declared entirely lawful by the German courts. Efforts to use the law against these manifestations of racism backfired, by legitimating the Nazis' legalistic undertakings. So let those who seek to challenge these laws do so but not without understanding the downside of such action.

Some may suggest that the alleged science purporting to support these bans be challenged on the basis of scientific truth. Perhaps. But that too may play into the hands of those who would argue that even acknowledging a possible scientific basis for these bigoted proposals lends some legitimacy to them. "Science" too was used to support Nazi racial studies. Should German scientists now conduct "twin studies" on circumcised and uncircumcised siblings? Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that "the health benefits" of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – "outweigh the risks?"

The best response is to shame the Germans into rejecting this new form of left-wing anti-Semitism, by showing them how similar it is to the Nazism they now claim to abhor. This approach will not work in Norway, because Norwegians have forgotten their history and still believe they were victims of Nazism rather than collaborators. Norway's anti-Semitic laws preventing kosher slaughter of animals date back to the pre-Nazi period and have remained in force since that time. Norway seems to have no shame nor is it capable of being shamed. Many Germans, on the other hand, seem willing to remember the past—at least up to a point. They must confront that past and look into the historical mirror before they once again go down the road of treating their Jewish citizens as second class or worse.

Shame on those Germans who would ban circumcision. Shame on those Germans who do not care enough to rise up in anger against the pseudo-scientific bigots who falsely claim to be interested in the sensitivities of children. Praise for those Germans who do stand against the bigotry of their countrymen.

Let other countries with cleaner hands take the lead in conducting real scientific research and in seeking to protect the rights of children and animals. The dirty hands and filthy past of Germany forever disqualifies that country from leading the effort to ban Jewish rituals. For shame!

Comment on this item

15 Reader Comments

It is really shame in which way you write about Germany. Really disgusting!!! YOU HURT PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER DONE ANYONE ANYTHING: I was born in 1967 and know about the Holocaust only by reading.

BUT TALKING ABOUT THE REAL ISSUE :WHAT HAS THE CLAIM of self determination to do with Antisemitism please???

I have been circumcised WHEN I was 18 because I have liked more that style. It was my personal and intimate decision.

Reply->

Michael Glass • Sep 9, 2012 at 21:43

As the son of a Jewish father I take great exception to the way Mr Dershowitz has accused people he disagrees with as being anti-Semitic.

If all that Alan Dershowitz' can do is to cry "Anti-Semite" at those he disagrees with then his contribution is worthless. Opponents of ritual slaughter might be wrong-headed in calling for the stunning of animals before their throats are cut, but it strikes me that some of them might be trying to prevent needless suffering. Opponents of circumcision, or of circumcision without anaesthesia, or the forced circumcision of grown men, or the spreading of herpes by metzitzah b'peh might also be wrong-headed, but this does not mean that they are anti-Semites.

Alan, let us all know that certain ritual acts are essential if that is how you feel. However, your beliefs are not necessarily shared by others, and when they disagree with you, that does not automatically mean that they hate you or they are out to get you. And if fellow Jews disagree with you about ritual slaughter or circumcision, that does not mean that they are any less Jewish.

Reply->

Abigail • Sep 8, 2012 at 18:20

The truth is that circumcision as a practice goes beyond religion. Despite claims to the contrary found in the same kind of propaganda that also insists that 9/11 was the work of Jews, the top health organizations of the world have repeatedly confirmed that circumcised men are healthier, have a lower risk of numerous diseases, as do their female partners. Political pressures have kept the CDC from formally announcing their policy on this, but their recent findings not only reconfirm earlier ones; they strengthen them, and they've said so.

Alan: no matter what differences I have with your politics, I can always depend on you to defend us from anti-Semitism with your usual eloquence. Considering the spread that this local (Hesse) decree has been made the law of the land, could this have been quietly pushed by the federal government?

While I suspect that this "ban" was aimed at the large Muslim community in Germany, all know that they will ignore it. The Jews of Germany will likely obey.

Reply->

Ronald Goldman • Sep 6, 2012 at 14:40

Rather than guess at others' motives and avoid looking at the facts, just consider that many Jews question circumcision. Here's why.

Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied.

Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons. Relying on presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient because of personal, religious, financial, and political conflicts of interest.

Reply->

concerned cynic Ronald Goldman • Sep 8, 2012 at 00:08

"Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that "the health benefits" of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – "outweigh the risks?"

Because members of the AAP Task Force had ideological and cultural conflicts of interest. Because the Task Force made selective use of evidence. Because the key evidence for the "prosecution," the randomised African clinical trials, were badly designed, badly executed, and badly analysed. Because hundreds of millions of men in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan remain intact all of their lives with no complaints. Because nearly all health problems attributed to the foreskin are in fact due to poor hygiene and irresponsible sexual behaviour. Because the long term risks of circumcision, especially the risks for adult sexual pleasure and functionality, are not known (the AAP admitted this) and hence cannot enter the cost-benefit calculus.

Reply->

abigail Ronald Goldman • Sep 9, 2012 at 14:39

Mr. Goldman, your comments are far too reminiscent of the views in previous centuries that suggested that masturbation caused mental illness. Not only is there no evidence to substantiate your statements, but in making them, you are stating, in effect, that psychological problems occur more in Jewish males than in non-Jewish males (or, for that matter, in Jewish males more than in Jewish females). This is not only patently anti-Semitic, it is also patently absurd.

Reply->

Batya Casper • Sep 6, 2012 at 13:52

Thank you, Mr. Dershowitz, for speaking up in such a forceful and honest voice. As you suggest, part of the world seems happy to equate Jewish practice with the Arab Israeli conflict, feeling that it is as politically expedient today to object to Jewish dietary laws and circumcision, as it is to outlaw the democratic state of Israel. From their point of view, outlawing Jewish customs is tantamount to placing another nail in the coffin of the Jews and of Israel. As you say, we are familiar with such rulings. We just didn't believe history would repeat itself so quickly.

Reply->

Andre von BREMEN-Hans • Sep 6, 2012 at 13:28

I am not for the ban of cicumcision if concerned persons pay for their own costs. In Belgium, these intervention costs are paid back by the Social Insurance, and to that I say no because it concerns not only the Jews that are living good and well in Belgium but it concerns also the Islamisten that want to invade us with demography and religion. The Belgian Social Insurance last year paid 2.5 millions Euros back to cover the costs of 25,000 circumcisions in Belgium, and that is five times more than five years ago; for this reason I say no to circumcisions at my expenses! This debate opens also another ugly aspect is Islamism: the clitoris-cutting and that is simply a crime against humanity. It has forbid a complete sex pleasure for the women that are by this way maintained in their function of having a lot of babies, the way Islam wants also to take the power in Europe. Something that has already arrived in Brussels City, capital of Eurabia, with 40 to 90% of Islamists in the schools. I think sincerely that the main concern of the ban is done about Islam and that Jews are in the collateral damages. By the way, the statistics of Brussels are showing Mohammed as the first name chosen by parents in Brussels. More on NORDPEACE: http://w1p.fr/71153

Reply->

Max Myers • Sep 6, 2012 at 13:22

I am an avid supporter of Gatestone, receiving the daily newsletter and devouring the articles, many of which I have posted online. However, this particular diatribe from Mr. Dershowitz falls exactly into the same category as when I was recently told by a young Israeli that all Germans are Nazis.

"So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised 8 days after birth. Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews."

My reaction then is the same now; namely that of disbelief that someone could spew such hyperbole as to have painted themselves parallel to those they accuse.

I am an uncircumcised German Jew, rabid in my defense of Israel and all things Jewish. I abhor anti-Semitism as much as I abhor any type of bigotry, especially when it comes from someone who I admire so much; disappointing.

"Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that "the health benefits" of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – "outweigh the risks?"

This is exactly the type of hysteria that continues a practice that has not, contrary to that which the AAP claims, been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This ban is not anti-Semitic. Rather, it is based on medical fact and lest anyone, Mr. Dershowitz included, type an angry response, try doing your own extensive research on Google.

Reply->

Jerry Max Myers • Sep 6, 2012 at 20:56

Your statement is a simple assertion without proof. I assert that you are an anti-Semite for opposing circumcision because it is a Jewish ritual. Does that feel right or just to you?

Let us look more carefully at circumcision. It brings a child to his first Jewish act and attaches him to his people. This act is what anti-Semites oppose, since it is their desire to relieve the world of the burden of the Jews.

Circumcision attaches Jews to the Bible. Again, anti-Semites wish to bury the book and the people that began the process of civilization.

Circumcision attaches Jews to each other through the celebration of ushering in the baby boy to the covenant of Abraham. There is nothing more distasteful to an anti-Semite than Jews enjoying each other, whether in a family or tribal context.

Circumcision distinguishes Jews from other human beings in that it does not require justification above and beyond the command of God as interpreted by the Rabbis. This failure of Jews to require justification in terms of the Zeitgeist or government approval angers anti-Semites to the very core of their beings.

Too bad! It is not your business! Our customs impose nothing at all upon the anti-Semite or his children. We don't want or need your approval. That too makes anti-Semites angry as well.

Reply->

Max Myers Jerry • Sep 7, 2012 at 08:24

Jerry, interesting that you call me an anti-Semite, yet I'm a Jew. One might assume, then, that according to your vitriol, all the hundreds of thousands of other Jews that are not circumcised, or now choosing not to circumcise their children, are also anti-Semites.

You utter such nonsense, that I had to laugh out loud at the sheer madness of it all. According to you, only a Jew that is circumcised is a good Jew. All other uncut Jews are anti-Semites? Seriously? The Jew that hates other Jews because they have broken from tradition.

This is exactly the same thought process that was used by the Nazis when they appointed Jews as 'guards,' giving them special privileges. Do you know that Judaism has been a powerful influencing factor on Islam and Christianity? Further, in the latter religion, your ideological belief is represented by Judas Iscariot.

Now, how does that feel, Jerry? I do have to wonder if your entire diatribe was not based on the fact that I'm uncut or that I don't agree with Mr. Dershowitz's opinion, but rather as was imparted to me by the young Israeli who believes that all Germans, Jews included, are Nazis? Perhaps, sir, instead of preaching about the Covenant of Abraham, you should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Reply->

Jerry Max Myers • Sep 7, 2012 at 18:43

Almost Shabbat in New York. Jews can be anti-Semites as they are leaving the fold: Marx' father and mother; Weinberger of Pollard fame; Finkelstein, and Mondoweiss. Yes, Jews can hate Jews. Mostly it is through words, but those words lead to actions. Your parents chose not to circumcise you. The Germans have chosen not to allow membership rites for the Jews. A Jew in spirit is permitted; a Jew of behavioral and cultural patterns is a thing of disgust. There is the power of life and death in the tongue (Ethics of the Fathers).

No time now. Shabbat Shalom

Reply->

Joshua Schonfeld Jerry • Sep 7, 2012 at 19:25

While I don't necessarily agree with the manner Jerry is presenting his points, I agree with a lot of his material (especially his latest comment).

In Romans 2:25-29 Paul writes, "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

Going off of what Jerry said, God here states the true characteristics of a Jew. Indeed, it is in Spirit, but I am certain that we both have a different concept of the Spirit of which I speak. I speak of the Holy Spirit who testifies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh to save God's people, the Jews. This Spirit is from God and can only speak the truth. We would all do well to listen to him as we read his word.

With that to say, the words of Jerry quoted from Proverbs seem to have only offered you the power of death. I offer to you Max, words with the power of life: that you may still indeed be counted as a Jew this day, as we see from the biblical text I have provided. I do not believe you to be an anti-Semite and would love to speak with you more on this matter. The same goes for you too, Jerry. God bless you both.

Reply->

concerned cynic Max Myers • Sep 7, 2012 at 23:15

It is true that from the orthodox point of view, an uncircumcised man cannot be a Jew in good standing. But otherwise I agree with Myers: in no way does the preceding sentence imply that a Jew who opposes brit milah performed on an unconsenting infant or, worse yet, an uncircumcised Jew, is an ipso facto an anti-Semite. A person of Jewish ancestry can quietly disagree with orthodoxy in many ways, while very much remaining a Jew in many intellectual and cultural senses.

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.